Search

Background: Noninvasive treatments are frequently used in treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma (sBCC) because of better cosmetic results, lower costs, and less burden on health care services when compared with surgical excision. However, probability of treatment failure is higher after noninvasive therapies and may depend on histologic tumor characteristics., Objective: We sought to investigate whether tumor thickness and adnexal extension are determinants of treatment failure in sBCC treated with topical methylaminolevulinate-photodynamic therapy, imiquimod, or 5-fluorouracil., Methods: Data were derived from a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of methylaminolevulinate photodynamic therapy, imiquimod, and 5-fluorouracil for treatment of sBCC (ISRCTN79701845). For tumors with treatment failure (n = 112) and a randomly selected control group of tumors without treatment failure (n = 224) data on tumor thickness and adnexal extension were retrospectively collected. Treatment failure was defined as a clinically and histologically persistent or recurrent tumor within 1-year posttreatment., Results: Tumor thickness of included patients ranged from 0.2 to 1.0 mm. Tumor thickness and adnexal extension of sBCC were not significantly associated with treatment failure of methylaminolevulinate photodynamic therapy, imiquimod, or 5-fluorouracil., Limitations: Follow-up period of 1 year is a limitation., Conclusion: There seems to be no need to determine tumor thickness or adnexal extension in sBCC before treatment., (Copyright © 2015 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clinical and histopathological differentiation between basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and trichoepithelioma (TE) is a frequent problem. Attempts have been made to identify immunohistochemical markers helpful in differentiating them. A correct diagnosis is important because the tumours are treated differently. Recent studies showed the absence of androgen receptor (AR) expression in benign hair follicle tumours like TE. This study examines whether AR immunostaining is a useful diagnostic test to differentiate between BCC and TE. We randomly selected 75 cases with histological diagnoses of either BCC (subtypes: superficial, nodular or infiltrative) or TE (subtypes: classic or desmoplastic) from the database of the pathology department of Maastricht University Medical Centre. The available haematoxylin & eosin (H&E) slides were reviewed by three independent investigators using predetermined characteristics. Fifty-six slides (38 BCC and 18 TE) with unequivocal histological characteristics of either tumour were used for immunohistochemistry with AR antibodies. Any nuclear expression within the tumour was considered positive. AR expression was present in 5/8 classic TE, 0/10 desmoplastic TE, 22/23 superficial or nodular BCC and in 10/15 infiltrative BCC. Immunohistochemical stain for AR is useful to differentiate between TE and BCC; particularly in desmoplastic TE versus infiltrative BCC (specificity and positive predictive value of 100%).

Background: The type of treatment for a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) depends on the histologic subtype. Histologic examination is usually performed on incisional biopsy specimens. In primary BCC, the histologic subtype is correctly identified with a punch biopsy in 80.7% of cases. In recurrent BCC, correct identification is more difficult because of discontinuous growth caused by scar formation. Because an aggressive histologic subtype has a significantly higher risk for recurrence in these tumors, the histologic subtype is at least as important in recurrent BCC as it is in primary BCC., Objective: To investigate the correlation between histologic findings on punch biopsy specimens and subsequent excision specimens in recurrent BCC. Furthermore, we sought to clarify how often an aggressive histologic subtype was missed, based on the punch biopsy specimen., Methods: We compared the histologic subtype in a punch biopsy specimen with the subsequent excision specimen in recurrent BCC. All BCCs were coded and judged randomly by the same dermatopathologist., Results: In 24 of 73 investigated BCCs (32.9%), the histologic subtype of the initial biopsy did not match with the histologic subtype of the subsequent excision. Of the 37 excised BCCs with an aggressive histologic subtype, 7 (19%) were missed by the initial punch biopsy., Limitations: Intraobserver variation may have affected the results of this study., Conclusions: Discriminating tumors with any aggressive growth is relevant for treatment. However, in recurrent BCC, the histology of the biopsy specimen does not always correlate with the histology of the definitive excision. This may have important therapeutic implications., (Copyright © 2010 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Difficulty in differentiation between a solitary basal cell carcinoma, which is known as a malign skin lesion and a benign trichoepithelioma, is a frequent problem in all day dermatologic practice. Clinically as well as histopathologically there are a lot of resemblances between these skin tumors. By means of two real life cases, we give here an overview of the possible problems and appliances in distinguishing these two entities; at the end we do some recommendation about the policy.